Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'd be cool with it if today descended into a long critique of the absurdist aesthetics of Andy's posting style. With the occasional dig at Harvey thrown in for spice, naturally. Let Nov 11, 2012 officially be Punch The Old Men In The Face Day!

Not sure how sharia's going to end "structural racism," but my question was more along the lines of "What is national politics going to do, and what can national politics do to end or vitiate 'structural racism'"?

#5683 is at least partly why I'm doing my degree in the UK. (Well ok, it's mostly because I didn't get into any schools in Canada, but that's besides the point).

Most (all?) PhD degrees in the humanities in Canada require you to pass a 2nd language proficiency test (your choice I believe, but it usually ends up being French). I'm not really complaining, I think it's a fine idea, and I think I'd be a better person if I worked on my languages...but part of being the worse person that I am now is being lazy and not wanting to do stuff.

I actually had the opposite experience to Rants. I grew up in a largely immigrant community (high school was about 50% Chinese, 30% rest of Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Iran in particular), 15% white and 5% black. I actually did a demographic breakdown of my yearbook when I was bored in calculus...I forget the exact numbers but they were around there. But I had zero interactions with First Nations people until I went to university in Saskatchewan. It was very odd A) being surrounded by white people all the time, and B) being around people who had lived with First Nations people all their lives and were operating on assumed stereotypes about them that I never even knew existed.

I don't really know enough about the whole issue of First Nations within Canada to comment any further than that.

Harv, you're projecting your own reasonable thinking onto a lot of people who don't share it. It sucks, but denying it doesn't help.

Harvey is right. The foundation of the modern Tea Party was all about finances, plus individual liberty and limited government. It was later co-opted by a lot of crazies, and has been distorted greatly.

Regarding DevilInABlueCap, I can not know why people complemented the posts, but I liked them because they were well written and from a very underrepresented (here on BBTF) prespective - well and I agreed with them. Of course I really truly value diversity. I like diversity of opinion and when I am interviewing I always skew towards favoring the candidates with the most different perspective/background/etc so long as they meet the basic skills.

I'll 9th or whatever DevilInABlueCap's post --

I think policy but also the manner in which policy is communicated matters greatly (i.e., take immigration - while it's entirely possible to support strict immigration enforcement, an absolute no to amnesty/paths of any sort without sounding suspiciously anti-Latino, let's face it... there are a whole host of things -- "english-only", some of the cultural concerns, etc -- that can't be pulled off even with the most gifted rhetorical spin).

Beyond that, though -- I heard a clip of ol' Rushbo yesterday discussing the demographic issue and he said something along the lines of "Clarence Thomas, Marco Rubio, and Herman Cain - what more do we have to do?!?!" Well - one other interesting little factoid from Tuesday... I don't recall if it's the House + Senate or just the House delegation -- but for the first time, the Democratic delegation at the federal level is actually minority white male.

I understand that people hate 'identity politics' -- but imagine you're black, Latino, Asian, etc -- one party has a crowd that looks pretty darn diverse...it simply has a lot more people who look like you, might have an accent you can relate to, or otherwise just seems like it's got more people who can relate to you culturally... the Democrats don't really need to look too hard or hunt around to find a host of Latino, AA, etc elected officials or party power holders to talk to you. I'm not accusing the GOP of 'tokenism' - but let's face it... Herman Cain didn't make it to the first primary. Clarence Thomas may have been nominated at some point anyway, but he was replacing Thurgood Marshall, the first AA justice on SCOTUS. Marco Rubio is a first-term Senator.

You can look, too, at even campaign rallies -- the crowd at Romney's concession looked to me to be 100% white... the crowd at Obama's victory speech looked an awful lot like the crowd I see on the El.

I'm not suggesting the GOP needs to implement candidate or campaign rally affirmative action - but it's foolish to point to one or two people, many of whom have no real power within the GOP, and claim that ought to even things out.

Forget Obama - Jim Clyburn is probably the 3rd most powerful Democrat in the House. The most powerful Democrat in the house is a lady (if I can expand the 'identity politics' to include a woman). The 2008 primary was going to yield an historic candidacy regardless of whether Hillary or Obama won. Obama's first SCOTUS pick was a Latina - and frankly, it's not like he had to reach all that deep to pick Sotomayer (she was seen as a potential future SCOTUS justice way back when Clinton nominated her to a Circuit court).

I mean it seriously -- good for the GOP that they've got Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio... but it's awfully hard to even count Mia Love or Herman Cain when we're talking about a House race loser and a guy that didn't even make it to Iowa.

It took years - decades - for the Democrats to reach a critical mass of 'diversity' in their halls of power. Screaming "we've got one too!!!", railing about identity politics, and then letting lesser elements in the party get the microphone too often isn't going to equalize that.

I'm sure its inevitable that eventually, the Republican party will end up looking more like America as a whole -- and I'm sure that some day, the GOP may well no longer have to carefully screen its campaign crowds to pick and choose people to put in the camera shots....

...but it still does now, and rail about identity politics all you want -- but if you're not a white male, I think it's foolish to think the Democrats' far more diverse roster of party leaders, elected officials, etc won't continue to offer them an advantage in the face of the changing national demographics. That doesn't mean that they're assured those votes -- but it quite necessarily means that, at the present time, the Democrats will get the first shot to sell their policy ideas to those different demographics simply because they've got more people "from that neighborhood".

Harvey is right. The foundation of the modern Tea Party was all about finances, plus individual liberty and limited government. It was later co-opted by a lot of crazies, and has been distorted greatly.

Yeah, and the US Civil War was all about "states' rights." And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for all those meddling kids!

the gop should be working to overhaul patent law and repealing dodd=frank and putting glass-steagal back in its place. this is the party of innovation

Nah, it's the party of superstition and magic. Creationism isn't a particularly innovative way of understanding biology, and that massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate evidence that changing atmospheric chemistry changes atmospheric properties doesn't seem to be abating either. While the snake-handlers are praying, serious folk are innovating through serious methods.

Not sure how sharia's going to end "structural racism," but my question was more along the lines of "What is national politics going to do, and what can national politics do to end or vitiate 'structural racism'"?

Very little to end in the short term. I'm of the mind that only willful erosion will eventually destroy that pile of karmic debt that we've accumulated. We had something like 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow quasi-slavery, so why do we think that national politics can wipe out the taint of racism toward black people** in a bill or two or the snap of a couple of fingers?

We have generations to go.

** There's certainly another heap of debt for American Aboringines. Some of that was the way things work in this world, the old "someone has control over an area and someone stronger covets it and takes it". Goes back to Israelites and Canaanites and even before.

As for complimenting people's posts, it's something I do occasionally (snapper, Bitter Mouse, and Shooty come to mind). I don't know, it just seems nice. Andy's re-post (whatever his motivation) reminded me of a point I had thought of earlier, but never expressed, in the thread when the discussion of what the point of these political threads was happening. It's a good way to bring interesting people into the site. I'm not sure if I just missed him elsewhere on BTF, but the politics threads seem to have brought Bitter Mouse in, which is a good thing. (This sounds familiar though...now that I think about it I seem to recall him telling me that he's been around forever and I'm a jerk for not noticing until one of these threads).

Anyway, posted just in case anyone was seeing a streak of paternalism in the old Gregster. I assure you, I have difficulty enough keeping on top of my own life. I don't think I have the capability of protecting others, condescendingly or not.

that isn't constructive. the dems have their fringe elements. you don't see any posts from me on that stuff.

Harv, I love you man. I mean, in a manly, not gay sort of way. Like I loved my Uncle Millard, that day he swatted a yellow jacket out of the air with his bare hand, picked it up while it was stunned and put it down my older brother's pants, just to watch the hilarity happen when it came too. But you are in denial here. The evangelical/creationist wing of the party is no longer the fringe. It hasn't been since the mid-90s. The tiger you boys agreed to ride back in the 70s has officially turned and gobbled you up.

Not sure how sharia's going to end "structural racism," but my question was more along the lines of "What is national politics going to do, and what can national politics do to end or vitiate 'structural racism'"?

Very little to end in the short term. I'm of the mind that only willful erosion will eventually destroy that pile of karmic debt that we've accumulated. We had something like 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow quasi-slavery, so why do we think that national politics can wipe out the taint of racism toward black people** in a bill or two or the snap of a couple of fingers?

We have generations to go.

Then they aren't really "political" issues to any significant degree and don't add much to discussions about national politics and elections. They're social issues essentially beyond the reach of politics.

the gop should be working to overhaul patent law and repealing dodd=frank and putting glass-steagal back in its place. this is the party of innovation

We just had a rather big patent law overhaul - the Leahy-Smith Act, passed in 2011, and it's the most significant upgrade to patent law in 60 years.

In addition, the much pooh-poohed Obama 'streamlining of regulations' EO a few years back likewise had perhaps its most significant impact on patent regulations (virtually all to the benefit of filers).

Not saying "we're all done!" -- but we've had some very, very significant changes in patent law and intellectual property in generations, both on the statutory and regulatory side, and the changes were very much and wholly in the form of liberalization (small "l") of patents, intellectual property, etc... The law led directly to some of those mammoth numbers of patent purchases the tech big players undertook in the last year.

To me -- I think we'd be best served letting these changes take hold, see what various court interpretations yield, and gauge the effects on those areas for a bit before rushing ahead with any more big changes... I'm not saying that there aren't certain specifics we can't look at, but I'm not seeing the need for another big overhaul at this time.

Not sure how sharia's going to end "structural racism," but my question was more along the lines of "What is national politics going to do, and what can national politics do to end or vitiate 'structural racism'"?

Well, it all starts with Obamaphones...

I have to ask...

While perusing NRO, freeper, and other places yesterday - I kept seeing references to this or similar items (~I guess I have to give up my paycheck to poor people to get their free phones~)... I googled around and this from FactCheck.org seems to be the genesis of it... or - is there something more I'm missing?

GOD! Now the meta-conversation about whether or not we're being a bunch of patronizing asshats is itself a bunch of patronizing asshattery. SHUT UP! You're all a bunch of middle-aged white guys on the internet. I assure you, you're being a patronizing asshat. All of you. ALL THE TIME!

I googled around and this from FactCheck.org seems to be the genesis of it... or - is there something more I'm missing?

Honestly, I have no idea. All I know is 1) this is a popular talking point with the "makers and takers" crowd of late, and 2) it's just friggin' hilarious. I mean, "Obamaphones!" I first heard it, my first thought was, "words that sound like 'Obama'? You can't even get full a Jeopardy! category out of that."

For you, perhaps. The more important question is if it bothers her, however, and you might consider the possibility that you could, in fact, learn from her perspective.

There you go again. What makes you possibly think I haven't considered that?

It gets uncomfortable to see white guys patronize black people. It hasn't got quite as high on the cringe scale as Judith Light's mom on Who's The Boss greeting Ray Charles with "What it is, bro!!!," but it's not that far off either.

Problem solved! Or, you know, you could tell blacks and Latinos that they're idiots and morons, that they are lazy and dependent, that they refuse to take responsibility for themselves and that's why they want an active Federal government,

Funny, that's essentially what the Democratic Party tells them. That they're lazy and dependent people who need government handouts because they're some combination of morons/victims who are being screwed over by The Rich.

That is the only conclusion one can draw from a key part of the Democratic Party's platform which agitates for wealth redistribution in the form of welfare and Obamacare and the like. (The technical term is Free Stuff.)

And then when they vote against your party in absolutely absurd numbers, wonder what the heck was wrong with them.

Hmm. Seems to work just fine as a strategy for Democrats for ensuring votes. You have this exactly backwards. It's not exactly a shocker that when you offer people free handouts pre-packaged with a ready-made excuse that they are being screwed over by those whose money you are about to hand over to them, you're likely to get their votes.

----I often post long or full quotes from links because I can clearly see that many people otherwise never click on them. Some even brag that they don't. If people don't like reading these quotes, don't read them.

----I'll often re-post the dialogue that leads up to a current comment because certain people practically make it a profession of ignoring and / or misrepresenting everything that went before. I have no intention of changing this practice until the people I'm referring to cease quoting snippets out of context. You might note I'm less inclined to do this when one post follows immediately upon another, and that I'm more inclined to do it when I'm replying to a post that was a ways up the thread.

----I've quoted DIABD because (a) she's making consistently good points; and (b) because when others make these same points, we're waved off with sarcastic remarks about being "spokesmen for black people / Latinos / etc.", often by the same people who are complaining now. When I read these sort of complaints, I consider the source. And to be honest, I don't give a rat's patooie if it makes someone like SugarBear "uncomfortable". Get out your ####### hemorrhoid cushion if you're in so much pain.

Oh, and speaking of quotes, that one I posted in 5648 about the GOP's demographic problem was from today's column by........George F. Will.

Both HuffPo and Politico have stories up on Karl Rove's day of reckoning with his big donors (BTW - the number was $300 million... it was nearly $400 million!... all to essentially buy Ben Nelson's Nebraska seat that was free for the taking anyway :-).

"I'd love to be a fly on the wall" is an overused cliche, but man... that is one call that I dearly, dearly wish I could listen in on.

10. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
9. Remember when I said I really needed $500 million? Well, that's why.
8. Gentlemen, let me assure that your investments in Madoff Electoral Strategies LTD are just as safe as the day you made them
7. But aren't you at least glad you gave it to me rather than the IRS?
6. What can I tell you, if the lottery is the stupid poor person's tax, I'm the stupid rich person's tax!
5. But think of all the little subsidiaries of mine whose jobs you saved!
4. Don't believe the concessions and network calls, we've got significant votes in red counties still outstanding
3. What $390 million.... I don't remember you giving me $390 million.
2. Dave's not here, man...
1. I'll let you in on a little secret -- the direction of policy in Washington depends most on a first term, back-bench Senator in the minority party.

I'd be cool with it if today descended into a long critique of the absurdist aesthetics of Andy's posting style. With the occasional dig at Harvey thrown in for spice, naturally. Let Nov 11, 2012 officially be Punch The Old Men In The Face Day!

That's fair enough, but since I've already named this The Official BTF Week of Gloating, it'll have to wait a few days.

Wow, Sam actually got something right, and was correct to point it out:

So, yeah. Good stuff all around here this morning. Even Old Man Wisconsin is making semi-lucid points. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that all of this "Great post, DevilInABlueCap!" stuff that people are using as intro sounds a lot like the internet equivalent of "You're pretty for a black girl."

Just sayin', kids.

Exactly. Though it's not surprising that the people doing this, like Steve and Andy and the rest, completely failed to notice the irony.

----I've quoted DIABD because (a) she's making consistently good points; and (b) because when others make these same points, we're waved off with sarcastic remarks about being "spokesmen for black people / Latinos / etc.", often by the same people who are complaining now. When I read these sort of complaints, I consider the source. And to be honest, I don't give a rat's patooie if it makes someone like SugarBear "uncomfortable". Get out your ####### hemorrhoid cushion if you're in so much pain.

You didn't just quote her. You made a showy show of making sure everyone knew how closely you were reading the posts of the black woman. And then you made a showy show of making sure everyone knew how much you think people should read the posts. You've done it since Devil has started posting.

Like I said, I didn't need your help (and really don't think anyone else around here did). I've read all her posts very closely; they're quite good -- better than yours, in fact.

That's fair enough, but since I've already named this The Official BTF Week of Gloating™, it'll have to wait a few days.

What? I can gloat and punch you in the face at the same time, Andy. I'm a multitasker.

Yeah, but since you're an old man, too, you might want to check to make sure you can remember where you put your boxing gloves. But to save you the trouble, I think the last time I looked they were strapped behind your neck.

It wasn't the first time Andy's done it; in fact, he's called explicit attention -- Look everyone and learn from the black woman !!! -- to Devil's posts at a rate of something like 9 out of 10 of them. It's become almost uncomfortable to read.

You didn't just quote her. You made a showy show of making sure everyone knew how closely you were reading the posts of the black woman. And then you made a showy show of making sure everyone knew how much you think people should read the posts. You've done it since Devil has started posting.

Sugar Bear darling, I even read your posts, clueless as they usually are. Don't feel left out.

The foundation of the modern Tea Party was all about finances, plus individual liberty and limited government.

Eh . . . kinda. But overt racism was there right at the start, until they were told to put a lid on it. In 2008, the country elected a moderate statist who was politically no different to either of the Clintons -- but neither of them inspired a semi-organized grassroots movement made up almost entirely of white people who were allergic to the other and liked to advance arguments about class that were couched in coded racial terms.

I acknowledge that the pocketbook issues were probably the motivator for a great portion of Tea Party people. But to pretend as though they weren't convenient cover for a lot of terrified white conservatives is to look at the sky and call it green.

I've seen strange coalitions around here, but the one among Sugar Bear, Sam and Ray has got to be one of the better ones. Though maybe no more unusual than my current coalition with the George Will of #5648.

but it is not the bulk of the party, not the majority of the 50 odd million who voted on tuesday

Well Harv, if you can squint hard and remember back to the halcyon days of 1992, Bill Clinton will come to you as a dream omen and remind you that if you have a strong plurality, you don't need a majority to rule.

wever, this thread is filled with generalizations about Republicans, conservatives and even whites, so that might be an area that some people could work on.

Discussing millions of people -- I have no idea how many Republicans, conservatives & white people reside in the U.S., but I suspect it's a fair amount, even allowing for overlap -- individually is probably beyond the ability of, hell, the whole internet, much less BTF.

as to this whole anti-science stuff i understand the basis of that stuff and no amount of discussion is going to change anyone here from thinking otherwise. but it is not the bulk of the party, not the majority of the 50 odd million who voted on tuesday.

HW, what % do you think? 5, 10?

Like Edmundo, I'm genuinely interesting in what you think about this, Harvey, from an insider's point of view, the percentage of folks in the party who are like this, what weight they have numbers-wise.

----I've quoted DIABD because (a) she's making consistently good points; and (b) because when others make these same points, we're waved off with sarcastic remarks about being "spokesmen for black people / Latinos / etc.",

I've seen strange coalitions around here, but the one among Sugar Bear, Sam and Ray has got to be one of the better ones.

I mildly agree with them. You also do the same thing with bbc's posts. It's easy enough to get over.

***

Re: Future Wedge Issues for the Republican Party:

The deficit/debt is still the biggest single Republican wedge issue. People who are concerned about the debt identify as Republicans even though they don't espouse a credible plan to address the debt.

Patent reform. If Republicans like, they can pick this issue up. Currently, it's nobody's issue because tech companies and content companies are both liberal organizations. If Republicans want to pick up 10's of votes, they can push this as an issue.

Internet freedom. Again, an opportunity here because content companies are aligned with Democrats.

Infrastructure. Infrastructure spending has actually long been a Republican issue. Dwight D. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. This is a somewhat credible area for Republicans to run on. Abolish the gas tax, replace with a carbon tax? not sure what the policy proposal is here, but there's space to move, especially on WiFi, transportation.

***

My guess is that Republicans will just triple down on debt. It's silly because there is a very high likelihood of a "Grand Bargain" that makes everyone sick of talking about the deficit.

and i would remind folks that there was a lot of dirt heaped on the gop's grave after 2008. it turned quickly. events happen

I remember -- & I'm sure you & others here do as well; I mean, you've got a couple of decades on me & were certainly infinitely more politically aware than I was back then -- the GOP being pronounced dead after the post-Watergate congressional elections of '74.

The points made back on the last page about Asian-Americans ring true to me. My students (who aren't citizens, but their children mostly are) talk about a lot of the same family/faith/country stuff that the Republican base does (without the guns), but they love Obama. Not that they can vote, but their children either can or will be able to, and the GOP message really should work for them, but the message is just way too nasty to people who aren't "like them."

Side note: A conservative friend actually said to me on facebook that it was black people who make racism an issue. This is apropos of very little, but when people over the age of five actually think that and tell it to actual black people who live through institutional racism, it's not a surprise that they don't get why they are seen as a group of bigots (even if that is not their direct intent).

Very little to end in the short term. I'm of the mind that only willful erosion will eventually destroy that pile of karmic debt that we've accumulated. We had something like 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow quasi-slavery, so why do we think that national politics can wipe out the taint of racism toward black people** in a bill or two or the snap of a couple of fingers?

We have generations to go.

Then they aren't really "political" issues to any significant degree and don't add much to discussions about national politics and elections. They're social issues essentially beyond the reach of politics.

Correct. Humans are biologically programmed to fear and avoid outsiders; it was a useful survival trait through much of our evolutionary history. The idea that we can "fix" this through political action is hubristic and betrays a fundamental disengagment with reality. We've made some gradual progress over the centuries in that most of us can refrain from immediately attempting to stab out-group people in the neck. I look forward to more incremental change in ~500 years.

This sounds familiar though...now that I think about it I seem to recall him telling me that he's been around forever and I'm a jerk for not noticing until one of these threads

I have been around forever - preregistration days and back to Primer. I am not a great baseball mind and not in the class of many for snark and so I mostly read (I commented in some of the steroids threads - Ray and Dave N were early allies, heh). The NBA OT thread sucked me in to posting more, because I know more about the NBA than baseball (well I did when I had season tickets to the T-Wolves). Then when Politics OT came in I was very happy, because I ddin't need to know anything to comment :).

Seriously though I try to bring economic and rodent brand analysis to the discussion and a little Minnesota nice (wish I were better at that, but I am not a native MN so still workingn on it).

On to other topics ...

Good to see folks are back to hurling rocks (tells me the recovery from Election night is going well).

The points made back on the last page about Asian-Americans ring true to me. My students (who aren't citizens, but their children mostly are) talk about a lot of the same family/faith/country stuff that the Republican base does (without the guns), but they love Obama.

Of course Obama has talked about that same family/faith/country stuff ever since he first burst onto the national scene**, but that simple fact never seems to register among the Republicans.

when i think of anti-science i think of the folks who are actively pushing efforts to eliminate science being taught in schools, actively pushing the government to not support/employ science, and other obvious attempts to thwart science having a presence in the public forum

i do not equate someone believing in god creating man as being anti-science.

i do not equate someone believing in god as being anti-science

so i am unsure how to provide a percentage because while i freely acknowledge there are hard core creationists who are republicans and support the silly creationist museums and the like the standard republican has to believe in science or the bulk of the party would be engaging in faith healing.

Sam H. (Rickey) is the neck-stabber. And I assume he's a suspect in any murder.

Sam M. lives in Kentucky and teaches young people useful things. Or the law, at least. He is a Mets fan, and thus evil.

Sam H. lives in Georgia and teaches young people useful things. Or tries to talk them out of their pants. He's a Braves fan, and thus angelic and good.

Sam H. is far more likely to threaten you with violence and mock your children's low intelligence. He's awesome like that. He also has a fantastic beard. Sam M. couldn't grow a real beard if his life depended on it.

I am not a great baseball mind and not in the class of many for snark and so I mostly read (I commented in some of the steroids threads - Ray and Dave N were early allies, heh). The NBA OT thread sucked me in to posting more, because I know more about the NBA than baseball (well I did when I had season tickets to the T-Wolves). Then when Politics OT came in I was very happy, because I ddin't need to know anything to comment :).

Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't around in pre-registration days, and don't think I've ever dipped a toe in a steroids or basketball thread. Oddly enough I too came to the politics thread because I didn't (don't?) really know anything about politics...though not in a smiley face way.

So what's the next big event that focuses the political discussion? Or will we be just blowing willy-nilly for a while?

The GOP talking about the debt is so incredibly unconvincing to anyone paying attention (which means it does work for many voters I admit). The next time the GOP cares about (does something about) the debt when they are in power will be the first. The debt talk is just framing to shrink government and lower taxes. It is a talking point used when Democrats are in power.

Yes there are individual GOP who care about the debt, but guess what Dems care also - too much I would argue.

so i am unsure how to provide a percentage because while i freely acknowledge there are hard core creationists who are republicans and support the silly creationist museums and the like the standard republican has to believe in science or the bulk of the party would be engaging in faith healing.

Two metrics you might consider: the % of party members who support teaching "intelligent design" in science classes; the % of party members who openly deny climatology.

This is what I was trying to get at on the last page. If we didn't make generalizations, we wouldn't have made it out of Africa. It is human nature, and nobody, unless they are enlightened on a level of Buddha, can fully overcome those elements of human nature. What I want to know is how we can fix the situations that drive substantial proportions of given cohorts of society to behave in ways that reflect negatively on that entire cohort. To pretend that that isn't happening is foolish.

i do not equate someone believing in god creating man as being anti-science.

i do not equate someone believing in god as being anti-science

Weighing both creationism and evolution and concluding "Yes. Yes. Creationism is where it's at" is irrational. It's a conclusion formed based on ingrained teachings (indoctrination to put it mildly, brainwashing to put it bluntly), blind faith, and inherent bias.

I don't know that I'd call that "anti-science" - or even "stupid" - because intelligent thought doesn't even have a seat at the table. The person is working purely off of an ingrained belief system that can't be challenged.

"Anti-science" implies that the person considered science and rejected it. But I don't see that as being the case, as the person never gave science a fair hearing.

i do not equate someone believing in god creating man as being anti-science.

i do not equate someone believing in god as being anti-science

I didn't take that tack either - if you include the "Science is basically right, but God empowers it!" it crowd, it's 80% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans. Young Earth Creationists are explicitly rejecting science - Old Earth Creationists ain't. If you get the age of the Earth from Usher, you're rejecting science - if you get it Pb/Pb charts of meteorities, you're accepting science - don't matter what (if any) role you think God had in it. The papacy is "Yes, the Big Bang is real, and the Bible is a metaphor for it" - if you're not there, yes, you're anti-science.

All I'm saying is that there are cultural factors on First Nations (most of which are probably white people's (politicians/bureaucrats) fault, that make the likelihood of a qualified candidate coming off of a reserve lower than someone in the general population. How do we change those cultural factors? I'm not talking about ethnic heritage, I'm talking about general living conditions and present-day attitudes.

Asking what "we" [white people] need to do to fix the attitudes of "those people" [minorities] is exactly the kind of paternalism conservatives like to accuse liberals of. If you talk to minorities, you will find that they have had a long and vigorous discussion of their situation. Agency, empowerment, and opportunity is what they, like all people deserve (real empowerment, not the fake kind libertarians talk about). Voting and participation is one form of that agency, it's not a desire for "government handouts", it's a very real (and American! or Canadian!) attempt to take control over their own lives.

Selection bias. You probably think the mass of humanity is something close to the level of intelligence and learning required to successfully log onto the internet and converse via social media. You are terribly, terribly wrong.

Those numbers seem pretty good to me. Most Americans believe a super powerful Jewish Fairy Man literally created the Earth in 6 days, then retired to rest on his golden throne while stroking his fantastic beard. Of all the possible mistakes all of us could make, please try to avoid the worst one; "over estimating the American public."

What I want to know is how we can fix the situations that drive substantial proportions of given cohorts of society to behave in ways that reflect negatively on that entire cohort. To pretend that that isn't happening is foolish.

I'm a bit out of my element in these discussions, but aren't the two related?

People unable to get a job because no one wants to hire them due to the behaviour associated with their cohort, are now in that group of unemployed that give the cohort a bad name. Obviously there's a wider context to the issue as well, but I'm not sure it's possible to make fine distinctions like that.

So what's the next big event that focuses the political discussion? Or will we be just blowing willy-nilly for a while?

The "Fiscal Cliff" (scare quotes needed) - OMG! Possibly leading to a "Grand Bargain", which may send shivers up the legs of the Washington Pundit class everywhere.

I snark but true belivers on all sides (Dems, GOP, Pundit) see danger and opportunity in the whole pile of tax and spending fiscal things that are set to happen with the new year. A huge number of Pundits, independants, and other such folks really, really want a bipartisan compromise, while the true believers are not quite so happy.

Specifically egarding Andy's posting practices, I've always been under the impression that Andy re-quotes everybody. Frequently. AT LENGTH. (cough) Can't fathom how anyone who'd been here for a while would think otherwise.

Sam H. lives in Georgia and teaches young people useful things. Or tries to talk them out of their pants. He's a Braves fan, and thus angelic and good.

Wherein Sam H. outs himself as Smitty*.

Sam H. is far more likely to threaten you with violence and mock your children's low intelligence. He's awesome like that. He also has a fantastic beard. Sam M. couldn't grow a real beard if his life depended on it.

Eh . . . kinda. But overt racism was there right at the start, until they were told to put a lid on it. In 2008, the country elected a moderate statist who was politically no different to either of the Clintons -- but neither of them inspired a semi-organized grassroots movement made up almost entirely of white people who were allergic to the other and liked to advance arguments about class that were couched in coded racial terms.

I acknowledge that the pocketbook issues were probably the motivator for a great portion of Tea Party people. But to pretend as though they weren't convenient cover for a lot of terrified white conservatives is to look at the sky and call it green.

The modern TP started when GWB was in office. I went with a co worker on tax day in 07 or 08 to a little protest in front of the state capital. Only signs, complaints, etc being talked about was lowering taxes and lowering spending. I think there was another protest when the TARP legislation was being voted on.

Now it has fully been funded by the Koch brothers, adopted by the religious-right, etc to the point now where he could semi-accurately be labeled the Radical Right.

Selection bias. You probably think the mass of humanity is something close to the level of intelligence and learning required to successfully log onto the internet and converse via social media. You are terribly, terribly wrong.

I dunno. The masses seem to have no problem making moronic Facebook updates, or leaving comments on YouTube.

Sam H. lives in Georgia and teaches young people useful things. Or tries to talk them out of their pants. He's a Braves fan, and thus angelic and good.

Wherein Sam H. outs himself as Smitty*.

For the sake of honesty and clarity, I should point out that while Sam M. is actually in the academy somewhere in the state of Kentucky, I am not. I'm a senior BI consultant for a global software and data warehousing company. M teaches kids legalese. I drive the ####### economy forward.

People unable to get a job because no one wants to hire them due to the behaviour associated with their cohort, are now in that group of unemployed that give the cohort a bad name.

That's definitely true, and the crux of the issue. I do know that throwing money, and cells phones, at people/groups with no framework of accountability is a bad idea.

And when I said "we", SdeB, I didn't mean white people, I meant all of us. I am not a racist person. If you took a Chinese, a Zulu, and Swede, an Italian and a Persian baby and raised them all in the same family, I'm sure they'd all turn out pretty much the same, or at least to the same degree that regular siblings do. To me, racism is the belief that certain ethnicities have inherent genetic deficiencies. I don't have that belief.

The "Fiscal Cliff" (scare quotes needed) - OMG! Possibly leading to a "Grand Bargain", which may send shivers up the legs of the Washington Pundit class everywhere.

Sounds like the "Great Contract" of 1610, which may (or may not) have been an interesting benchmark in government, democracy and state finance.

Essentially the King had several different ways of raising revenue, Wardship (when an heir was underage the crown would take control and reveues of the land until he was of age), Purveyance (crown prerogative to take necessary goods for maintenance of the royal household), and taxes on imports, as well as calling parliament and asking for money to pay for specific things (normally in a crisis or a war).

Elizabeth's wars with the Spanish and the increasing cost of governance in the 17th century meant James had a pretty hefty debt he needed help paying off. So the parliament of 1610 was called mostly to deal with the "Fiscal Cliff". The Great Contract was an agreement that the King would abandon all his non-parliamentary forms of revenue in exchange for a £600,000 signing bonus and an annual salary of £200,000 for perpetuity. Both sides ended up rejecting it, but it would have been interesting to see how the rest of the century played out with it in place. Likely there still would have been the massive financial stresses that played such a large role in the tensions of the 1620s and eventually the Civil War (as well as the democratic principles that the English-speaking world has today)...but maybe not? I suppose fiscal reform doesn't make for the funnest counter-factual history, but that one could potentially have as many ramifications for the modern world and the United States as the American Civil War.